Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 38.
“As the Bill is drafted, this provision could feasibly be extended to anybody who is lawfully resident whom one of these newly appointed immigration officers determines they wish to detain and examine their identity. This would not be somebody that immigration officers would know they have a reason to detain. It would be somebody whom they do not know and whose identity they do not know. In terms of how the powers are worded, they are worded so widely. There are significant questions to be asked about who these immigration officers will be. Section 217 of the Bill allows a Minister to enter into contracts for services for these functions. Will the immigration officers be privately contracted? Will they be part of the Garda National Immigration Bureau? Will they be part of a border management unit?”
“As drafted, the Bill inadvertently sets the possibility of something similar here. The Bill allows for immigration officers to detain persons to determine their identity or nationality. This is something we will come to, but it is quite an outrage. It will be possible to detain persons, and this will not solely be persons who are in the international protection system. We should mention this point. It is a wider power that is being conferred on immigration officers. It is not limited. If we look to the United States, we see Somalis, for example, being picked out and targeted, as well as others. There is that kind of danger there. It is not limited just to applicants for immigration protection.”
“Our proposed amendment would simply carry the same requirement that is there under the 2004 Act forward into this Bill, ensuring that immigration officers performing functions under this Bill would have that same obligation to identify themselves on request. It seems like a small thing but it is a very significant thing. We have seen what has happened in the United States, for example, and none of us would have believed it. When we say, “Oh, that would not happen here”, I do not think they would have believed it would have happened there either. Masked ICE agents employed by the state refuse to identify themselves and roam the streets, where they can detain people without warrants or due process and who simply do not have to identify themselves and will not, in fact, even show their faces.”
“There are significant concerns about the requisite levels of training that immigration officers performing the functions set out under this Bill will be required to have and again in terms of accountability. This particular amendment seeks to ensure that immigration officers who are performing functions under this Bill will be required to identify themselves to a person affected on request. Currently, immigration officers are appointed under the Immigration Act 2004. This Act requires them to identify themselves in their duties but that provision only applies to functions performed under that Act. Immigration officers are required to identify themselves when they are performing functions relating to the Immigration Act 2004, but that same obligation is not specified in this Bill.”
“10, this reads: In page 20, line 3, after “2004” to insert the following: “and any immigration officer performing functions conferred on him or her by this Act shall, if requested by a person affected, produce the warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person”. Immigration officers are given very wide-ranging and significant powers under this Bill, including the power to detain people and children without a warrant and rights to detain people in a variety of different situations, including in a car. We will come to some of that later. It is inevitable, though, that we will find immigration officers in complex situations making decisions about another person’s freedom and liberty.”
“I suppose there is then a question of there being a two-tier system. Again, these would be people found to be successful international protection applicants. I think there is still a concern but I know we are a long way from voting on amendment No. 269. I want to indicate now, though, because this might be our only chance to say it, that I have concerns if we end up with intentionally punitive social welfare provisions for those who are found to be successful asylum seekers, legitimately seeking international protection. It would be a significant move away from the basic equality of treatment in our social welfare system. I will be opposing it. Turning back to amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 20, line 3, after “2004” to insert the following: “and any immigration officer performing functions conferred on him or her by this Act shall, if requested by a person affected, produce the warrant of appointment or a copy of it to that person”. Before I talk about this amendment, I want to return to clarify the response to Senator Ruane's last question. Regarding what the Minister read out concerning social welfare, is that staying in the Bill or is that the bit being changed?”
“My apologies but I do need clarity. Previously, a number of sections came through. We opted into, I think, four out of five or three out of four. I am trying to recall it at a certain point. There was one that we did not opt into. Is the Minister saying we did opt into that one, which allows for a person to be deported to a third safe country?”
“-----there is the state of origin and then there was an optional provision from the European Union, which looked to countries with which the European Union has an arrangement. It is effectively the El Salvador or Rwanda amendment whereby persons are being potentially deported to countries with which they have no meaningful connection but with which the EU has an arrangement. When we previously transposed other aspects of the migration pact, that aspect was not. I ask the Minister to please confirm whether in terms of amendment No. 7 that that is still the instance and that in safe countries, we are not looking at situations of deportations to countries to which the person does not have a connection but the EU simply has an arrangement. I am being straightforward in saying I do not know and seek a clarification.”
“The Minister might apologise as I need a clarification because these amendments came quite late. As the Minister will know, we had a number of areas of the migration pact which came through, which we opted into and did not opt into as yet. In these amended regulations, when we talk about safe countries and so forth, can the Minister confirm that this does not include the instance, which I think was set out previously, as one of the aspects of the migration pact which we did not opt into? I think it was the correct decision to not opt into it as yet. The instance said that there could be safe countries which were third countries with which the EU had an arrangement, maybe one of the countries to which persons could migrate. The Minister might remember.”
“There may not be a right to receive but a right to seek. Perhaps the Minister will indicate if he thinks the language in amendment No. 60 is too broad and will bring his own nuanced version of that on Report Stage because it is key to have clear information from the outset. I still have concerns as to how this is likely to play out.”
“Again, my concern was not around refusal. My concern is not around the situation of those receiving legal representation also wanting legal counselling. My concern is that we create a disincentive to seeking legal representation. I am concerned that there may be a possibly inadvertent dissuasive effect if people are overly informed that if they go for legal representation, it will cause problems for them, for example. I am concerned about whether that becomes the narrative. I am concerned that people may access legal counselling and may be made afraid to seek legal representation or feel that they will lose something or will make a misstep. That is why clarity is required in respect of legal representation, legal counselling and legal assistance. People need to know what they are and what their rights may be.”
“Just to reiterate in respect of minors that the Government's later amendments - amendment No. 102 and others - remove the requirement for the particular necessary skills and expertise in the persons who are providing that representation to the minor. They also allow that somebody may be representing up to 30 minors. I do not believe that adequately addresses the concern. On amendment No. 60, if the Minister feels that the language "shall be entitled to", I think the key thing is that they would be told of their right to seek legal representation. The crucial point is that people be informed of that at the same time as they are being informed about legal counselling rather than people, as I have said, who will be receiving legal counselling and in the belief they are getting legal advice when they are not actually getting legal advice.”
“15, I refer to the rationale for the removal of the language, the removal of the specific legal representation definition, to remove the phrase "practising barrister or practising solicitor" and to delete that from the definition of legal representation. This is not legal counselling but legal representation. Could the Minister talk through the logic on that?”
“I have two very quick further questions. On section 81, as we were saying previously, if somebody is proposed to be removed to a different member state, they would be notified. The Minister then changed it from "legal counselling" to just "legal representative". Could he clarify what the intention is there and what happens to persons who do not have a legal representative when their removal is proposed? Will they believe that the legal counsellor is going to know what is happening to them? Will they be given an opportunity to seek legal representation? What is happening at that point? Second, on Government amendment No.”
“101 and 102 later remove the requirement for those individuals to have the necessary skills or expertise. It allows that an individual representative may represent up to 30 minors at once. Is there not a danger that we create a situation where minors are effectively only getting legal counselling and not being supported in terms of accessing legal representation, given that special duty of care and the rights of the child, which we put into the Constitution collectively just a short few years ago in this State? There is that duty in terms of the best interest of the child. I would like if the Minister could elaborate on best interest, regulation, accountability and that question of clear information as to the multiple options.”
“Like many people when they land, not many people are familiar with the law until they find themselves trying to navigate it. Amendment No. 60 was a very sensible one which made it clear what the three things were at the same time. I would like the Minister's views on accepting that amendment. I would also like if we could have clarity about the point in respect of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable people in particular and that question of legal counselling. Is it only at the point of appeal that an unaccompanied minor is going to get it? I know there is this concern about the representatives that unaccompanied minors are entitled to. They say they are entitled to have an assigned representative but the Government's amendments Nos.”
“That could feel like the language of exclusion, threatening, making them feel they may be making a mistake or doing something wrong. That is the way people may feel when they are trying to navigate a bureaucracy, not because they love or choose bureaucracy but because they are put in a situation where they are having to seek asylum in many cases and they are trying to navigate that. I am worried that there is a disincentive to legal representation that may come - perhaps inadvertently and perhaps intentionally; I do not know - from that exclusionary language around the legal counselling piece. Somebody might say they are afraid to get legal representation because they are being told that it will exclude them from legal counselling, and they will not get the information they need about the process.”
“It states that people should be told what legal counselling is and their rights in that regard, what legal assistance is and their rights in that regard and what legal representation is and their rights in that regard. It provides that they would be announced and given as key information at the same time. I am concerned. We know the situation and how people operate, even the line that there is an argument for it as a money-saving measure, that people would be excluded from the legal counselling if they have legal representation. We can imagine in a situation where an individual is told that if they go for legal representation, if they come in with a solicitor or a barrister or whatever, they are not going to be entitled to legal counselling.”
“If people get bad advice from a legal counsel and if they are told something that may affect your life - and it can be a matter of life and death for some - what recourse do they have? What is the route in that regard? What is the accountability structure? Does accountability lie with the Legal Aid Board? Perhaps we will define it so the counsellors are employees of the board. In that situation, it would become a matter for the board. Is there a question around indemnity insurance? We have heard it is unlikely they would get indemnity insurance. That accountability piece is key and remains a question. Other key questions have not been addressed. Amendment No. 60 from the Cross-Party Group is a very good amendment.”
“A couple of issues arise. We are told the advice is likely to come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. Perhaps a better approach would have been to say that it would come from employees of the Legal Aid Board. We could allocate the resources of the State and have a number of employees. We would then be in a situation where there could be a sense of accountability. With respect, the Minister has not addressed the concerns about the regulation or accountability of those providing this legal counselling. The Legal Aid Board is appointing the counsellors but they are not necessarily employees. They may be, but they may not be. Where is the accountability? A question was raised, for example, about indemnity insurance. I would like to know what the accountability structure is.”
“What is happening in practice in situations like the transfer decision in section 81, where there is only provision for actual legally relevant support for those who may have got a legal representative? Under this legislation it seems that will likely become a narrower pool than is currently accessing legal representation.”
“They were not aware or made aware or supported in accessing proper legal representation. What is happening for those persons in terms of the notice of the transfer decision? Is that just going to the individual, and the legal counsellor who they thought was going to be helping them has just washed their hands and is not there? Will they be provided with access to legal representation at that point? Will there be measures in place where it is simply going to be the luck of the draw and that because they did not fight hard enough to get an actual lawyer, barrister or solicitor to help them early on, they are now being told we are deporting them? They will have nobody by their side because it turns out that legal counsellor was just somebody employed to press a few generic pieces of paper into their hands.”
“There are a number of other amendments in this area. Amendment No. 203 relates to section 81 of the Bill, which is where people are being notified of the Minister's decision to transfer a person to a different member state. They would notify, provide or communicate information to the person concerned and "any legal adviser or other counsellor representing". That is what it used to say. Now it is going to say, "legal representative". I understand the bar that we would like to see proper legal representatives dealing with the situation, for example, of a proposed transfer to another member state. My concern is that people do not have legal representation but a legal counsellor because at that early vulnerable point entering the system they were asked if they wanted legal counselling and said yes to that.”
“The asylum procedures regulation states clearly under Recital 16 that "It is in the interests of both Member States and applicants that applicants receive at a very early stage comprehensive information on the procedure to be followed and on their rights and obligations." It also states "It should also be possible for Member States to provide for free legal assistance and representation [which is a bar different from the counselling bar we are hearing from] during the administrative procedure in accordance with national law." I again wonder why the Minister, instead of properly resourcing and supporting the systems we have in terms of legal advice, assistance and representation, is experimenting with this new concept of legal counselling. The language given to us from European level is literally that of assistance and representation.”
“My colleague has talked about the fact that we are allowed to provide legal representation. However, we should be clear that the actual regulation encourages the provision of proper legal representation.”
“Maybe the Minister will clarify if he imagines these legal counsellors will be covered by normal indemnity insurance as a practising solicitor or barrister will be. We will see a potential situation where individuals are looking for the customised advice they need and are being denied it by a legal counsellor who is frankly not covered or insured for that kind of thing in the way a normal practising solicitor or barrister would be. The Minister said last week that people can apply for legal advice but there is no provision for people at the first stage, so they are likely to have failed in their early attempts. What will happen is that we will see the Legal Aid Board flooded with applications seeking personalised legal advice and an administrative burden placed on it, and one which in likelihood it will be unable to provide.”
“15 is changing the definition of legal representative. Not only are we seeing a shift in the definition of legal counselling, but we are seeing changes in the definition of legal representative. That leaves us with people being lucky enough to say they want they want the legal advice option defined in Bills. It is the luck of the draw which word they chose to put after legal, to determine what support they got. We know in practice that the legal aid system, in terms of proper legal advice and representation, is overstretched and under-resourced in that regard. I also note others have pointed out the concern that because of the constraints that apply, there is a danger in the area of indemnity. Those legal counsellors will likely not be covered by indemnity insurance.”
“The Minister is aware that throughout our legal system that the State has to put the best interests of the child centre stage. That is an obligation. That should also include the best interests of the child in the case of unaccompanied minors and ensuring, in their best interests, that they are being given the best possible legal advice and representation. I am concerned that the Minister said this is not to replace but to be supplementary to legal representation. However, amendment No. 15 changes the definition of legal representation, which is also a concern. We have legal counselling as this new concept constrained in what it can advise. We then have legal representation, and we might have thought we knew what it meant. The Bill previously said it meant a practising solicitor or barrister but that is being removed. Amendment No.”
“It is concerning where it may be coming from and the form it is coming in, and what protections will be there against that kind of advice. My colleague has also spoken to the fact that not only are we trying out this new method of legal counselling but there are also those with special reception needs such as unaccompanied minors. I urge the Minister, when we come to Report Stage, that at minimum we look to ensure proper legal advice and representation for those in that vulnerable category. I do not believe that unaccompanied minors are in a position to say they will choose legal counselling over legal representation and know the difference and to have that difference communicated. We have a responsibility at every age.”
“Otherwise, you can see that people will believe they are getting legal advice tailored to them, when in fact they are getting advice, which is not from a legal professional, a solicitor or barrister, which does not include all relevant factors under the law but is simply constrained to passing on a small set of information about procedures. That will leave them high and dry when it comes to the complexities of their individual case. It will fall to the Legal Aid Board to decide who is a legal counsellor and what qualification or experience they have. There is no oversight or regulation. We are trying out a new form. I note with concern that the Minister mentioned digital. We are aware of the previous experiments with chatbots maybe giving migration advice to people.”
“It is not giving individuals that kind of report. I worry that we have a new concept of legal counselling that we are trying out. We are experimenting with a new concept on an extremely vulnerable population, which in many cases will already be facing language barriers and so forth. We will be in a situation where you can imagine being asked if you would like legal counselling. You would say yes. This is why I strongly support amendment No. 60 from the cross-party group, which says you need to be informed of your rights to each of these different kinds of legal piece and you need to be told the difference between legal counselling and legal representation.”
“In that context, we know it is unlikely to be solicitors or barristers delivering this because solicitors or barristers, in terms of their professional duty, would have an obligation to give all the relevant information. I indicate that we will be looking to ensure that all of the information relevant to persons in the context of applications and the law, not just in terms of procedures, but the national and international legal context in which they are operating, would be made available to people. There is no guarantee any of that will be given. In fact, there is quite a strict preclusion of what information will be given. It is also clear that legal counselling is, as we said, digital, group or individual, but it is not tailored to the individual. That was the point being made by Senator Stephenson.”
“We have all been awaiting the definition of "legal counselling". It has now come, but with a large set of concerns, as we have heard outlined. I want to delve a little bit more into the question of who a legal counsellor might be. Under the proposed definition, the "guidance, information or assistance" to be given by the legal counsellor is strictly limited. The Government sets out in amendment No. 14 that it may include "guidance on, and explanation of, the procedure in respect of an application, including information on the rights and obligations of the applicant" and "assistance with the lodging of an application". It does not give the scope that would come with actual legal advice that looks to the wider context. It literally just informs a person of the procedures.”
“I am not going to get to the many other points I would like to because I would like to focus on our amendments. Those facts on displacement internationally need to be put on the record, however.”
“The fact is that millions of people right across the world were being driven into movement by escalations in conflict that we see every night on our televisions. We should remember, when we are disparaging the 1951 legislation and all of that, where that came from. It actually came from a point when humanity remembered, because they had seen it in the Second World War, what war is and what conflict is and what hideous things drive people into desperate situations. There is a suggestion that while there are some genuine cases, we are going to keep implying we know that most are economic cases and that the attraction is really our economic figures. Let us actually work with the reality that we have a world on fire and we are doing a tiny modicum of what we should be doing, and we should be doing it in a way that is decent.”
“In that year when there was a slight increase, again, very small numbers overall, which went down again last year, 2024 smashed records for the number of people who had been displaced through the horrors of war and conflict. It was described by the UN in 2024 as smashing records for human tragedy on a massive scale, with millions violently uprooted and struggling for survival as refugees and displaced people. The UN also noted that it was a failure and "a terrible indictment on the state of the world". In 2024, when there was that very small increase in the number of asylum seekers in Ireland, I do not think they were looking at the GDP figure and saying the economy is great and that they would all shop around.”
“There are a number of things I could comment on but I am keen, as I am sure others are, to move to the many amendments we have to cover. There is one thing that needs to be said. It has been stated as if it is a fact multiple times that economics is the driver of asylum seeking. Even the Minister suggested that when we look at the figures, it is when our economy is good that asylum seekers come in. We need for context to look at what is actually driving asylum seeking internationally. The fact is that the figures from 2014 show that there were 59 million people displaced by conflict worldwide. In 2024,120 million people were displaced by conflict.”
“I am very concerned that we seem to be being teed up for a repeat of that on Report Stage and I want to signal right now that I believe it is unacceptable. There has to be a proper timeframe and some modicum of respect for parliamentary oversight and proper parliamentary scrutiny brought back into this process.”
“This effectively precluded proper scrutiny. Now we have just been told that more amendments will be added on Report Stage. I would like clarity and confirmation, first of all, that any proposed Report Stage amendments will be published a number of days in advance to allow for a number of days for the amendment of these proposed Report Stage amendments. I would suggest that the Bill should not move forward to Report Stage until after these have been properly shared and circulated and given a substantial number of days. With respect, Saturdays and Sundays do not count. To get it on a Friday and be told that we can get our amendments in first thing on a Monday effectively precluded Senators from engaging with the 70 pages of Government amendments on Committee Stage.”
“I will respond to the comments by the Minister. He has indicated his intention to bring substantial new amendments on Report Stage, covering such important topics as permissions to enter or remain and questions of detention, monitoring and data sharing. These are very substantive. They are not minor or technical amendments but rather substantive, core topics. We have just been told that they will be introduced as Report Stage amendments, but of course in the Seanad that means the very last Stage, effectively. By its nature, that could end up precluding proper scrutiny. I have to note that in terms of parliamentary practice, we have had 70 pages of amendments from the Government added on Committee Stage. They came at 5 p.m. on a Friday, after the deadline for us to submit amendments was 11 a.m. that day.”
“I said the danger, if the European Union continues to not speak up in cases of genocide, breaches of international law and war crimes, is that perception. I quoted from institutes of statecraft and others that have stated this is a growing impression of the European Union, having stepped away from international law. It is not my view of the European Union - I have spoken very strongly and warmly of it - but there is the danger, if we do not reaffirm our principles, that perception could arise.”
“I already referred to climate measures. The LIFE fund has been mentioned as being crucial. Social cohesion is important. These are the things that underpin public confidence and pride in the European Union. Regarding the competitiveness agenda, we have heard a lot about digital regulation. We know that the direction the omnibus legislation is going in is towards deregulation. Please let Ireland take a stand on environmental deregulation and, crucially, digital deregulation. There are proposals to dilute data protection rights in order to allow AI algorithms to be trained in respect of personal data. The competitive advantage that Europe has is its standards, rights and respect for the rule of law. Please let us champion those during this period.”
“They spoke to me and each other about how proud they were of the fact that Europe invested in society, raised standards and did the work on the environment and equality. The Minister of State referenced the important provisions on equality and the environment. That is what creates pride in Europe, not just here in Ireland but across the Union. Yet, in the multi-annual financial framework, which will be negotiated during this term, we have seen a worrying slide away from expenditure in these crucial areas towards a focus on very excessive military expenditure. We are also seeing the competitiveness agenda, as it is framed, in a very narrow way. There is space for competitiveness, but some of it is actually deregulation. We seem to have learned from austerity that if we cut back on the social investment, that matters.”
“Ireland should use the opportunity presented by the Presidency to share the learning from the peace process, rooted in international law and underpinned by resources for peace not just for war and military expenditure. There should be a refocusing on the EU and its origin as a project for peace. We should stop a drift towards what is increasingly looking like a soulless economic bloc that cares little for who lives or dies and that sustains a very narrow version of economic growth. That is not what any of us wish for Europe. It is not what the citizens of Europe wish for. I was incredibly honoured to be part of the future of Europe process and to be involved with 800 citizens and hundreds of parliamentarians from across Europe in that.”
“I was disappointed that the Minister of State only mentioned peace once, which was in the context of enlargement. In the section on security and defence, there was no reference to the word "peace". I sit on five committees. At least three of them have written to the Minister of State to say that they want peace to be a strong theme of the Presidency. The Oireachtas has chosen that. Let us have peace reflected during our the Presidency. Ireland has a good story. The contribution the EU made to peace in Ireland was crucial. The European Convention on Human Rights was a foundational legal underpinning of our peace and an example of international law that should be championed and supported.”
“What does it say if we contribute to a backslide in relation to international law rather than championing it? As well as the disregard for international law, we have seen military expenditure being ramped up. Hundreds of billions of euro have been provided in loans to states that wish to spend money on weapons, including cluster bombs. Some €16 billion has been provided in loans to allow countries like Hungary, which is sinking deeper into authoritarianism, to buy weapons. The dangers of this need to be evaluated, in particular when the money involved is being routed away from things like regional development, a just transition, action on the climate crisis, which, we know, is real and is already affecting us and others across the world, and social cohesion, which was crucial to our peace process.”
“It stated that this will backfire immensely on Europe and will damage us. This is at a time when we correctly want to call for the application of international law in respect of Ukraine. I urge the Minister that this be the centrepiece and that we talk about international law and reroute ourselves towards that historical context. I ask that we not do this within a framework of values and friendly allies and that we speak about it only in the context of Ukraine and park the difficult conversation. I ask that the occupied territories Bill, for example, be made law during our Presidency and that we set the example we should already have set. Spain has jumped ahead of us and has started that ball rolling. We urged other countries to take action, but we did not.”
“Germany and some other countries are blocking action that reflects not just international law but also European law, including in the context of the suspension of EU-Israel trade agreement. We need to make a stand against the flagrant dismissal of the upholding of international law forged after centuries of misery. We have see genocides committed. We need to make a stand in this regard and remind our European colleagues that it is not optional to fail to apply something to one's allies but to apply it to others. This has been noticed internationally. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has noted the growing perception that much of Europe has completely abandoned international law. It holds out Ireland, Spain and Norway as countries that still seem to be interested, which is positive.”
“This is all the more true if they remain largely without consequence...therefore, now is not the time to lecture our partners and allies. The last time Israel bombed Iran, we had Ursula von der Leyen reaffirming a commitment to Israel's right to defend itself, even though Israel had initiated the bombing. We had other leaders in Europe talking about Israel doing Europe's dirty work for it. We need to be very clear. There is this line that the UN has failed, which was said by someone here yesterday. The fact of the United Nations and international law being asserted but having no consequence is a choice our colleagues in Europe are actively making. They are refusing to implement, for example, International Court of Justice rulings that are crystal clear.”